Re: Display of Mongolian in Arabic or Hebrew documents

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Nov 21 2007 - 15:28:54 CST

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Display of Mongolian in Arabic or Hebrew documents"

    Peter Constable wrote:

    > I'm not sure why it would be considered questionable practice: There's no a priori requirement for how outlines need to be oriented in the design space, the history is not a determining factor...

    Indeed not. I'm not suggesting that the outlines should be laid out RTL instead of LTR.
    I'm saying that it is questionable -- i.e. not wrong, but something about which opinions
    might differ -- for a normatively *vertical* script to be designed as if it were
    horizontal. I say it is questionable because I have heard it questioned. :)

    >If the glyphs were drawn rotated 90° clockwise from this orientation, then a CJK-like
    transform would be needed for vertical layout, rotating each glyph 90° counter-clockwise.

    You mean for horizontal layout, don't you? In vertical layout, a vertically designed
    glyphs would be stacked, using something like the VORG table for heights to ensure proper

    Moving on: accepting that an LTR layout model makes most sense for Mongolian script, in
    that it allows for both a reasonably simple vertical layout and for the more common
    instance of horizontal use, what would a user need to do if he did want RTL directionality
    e.g. embedded in an Arabic context? Is it possible at all?

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Gulf Islands, BC
    I'm like that Umberto Eco guy, but without
    the writing.   -- anonymous caller

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 21 2007 - 15:31:14 CST